Socialists: Working people don’t need stimulus checks
An official statement from Stewart A Alexander, Socialist Party USA Vice Presidential candidate.
Stewart A. Alexander
Nominee for Vice President Socialist Party USA
Candidate for Vice President Peace and Freedom Party
May 3, 2008
Today, millions of Americans are considering how they will spend their government rebate checks that will be received within the next few days and weeks. Recently, the Bush administration announced that the checks would be released earlier in hopes of giving the U.S. economy a needed jump start.
I have personally listened to many ideas of how these checks could be spent; the ideas range from taking a trip to Las Vegas, to hitting the local casinos; taking a vacation is another popular idea. The majority of people that I have encountered are hoping to receive their $300 to $600 check to help pay their mounting household bills. It also appears that most individuals have decided to put the shopping spree on hold and to use whatever extra cash to purchase gasoline.
This action by the president and the Feds, to reduce the time that 130 million Americans will need to wait before receiving their government checks, is another indication of the critical state the U.S. economy is now experiencing. Realistically, the government checks will do very little to relieve the financial dilemma for most working people. Most working people are struggling to survive, earning smaller paychecks, while paying more for food, fuel and daily expenses; and a one time check for $300 to $600 will be spent before most recipients are able to make the deposit into their bank accounts.
The government rebate checks are an example of the failures of capitalism and how a capitalist system will never meet the needs of working people. The checks are being sent to provide quick spending cash for millions of working people; however, these checks will provide few benefits for the poor and working class; while adding to the wealth and welfare of billionaires.
My wife, Vicki Alexander and I recently did an update on our monthly household budget to determine our finances as we approach the summer months. Since September 2007, our monthly expenses jumped a whopping $294. Our monthly gasoline cost, for the V6 Ford Mustang and the Ford Ranger, has increased an additional $78 monthly; and our groceries and food cost has increased an additional $60 monthly. All other household expenses were up an additional $156 monthly; a combined increase of $294 monthly and $3,528 annually. Millions of working people, across the nation are in the same situation as my wife and I, and a $600 government check will do little in the face of rising inflation and a
shrinking U.S. economy.
This week, President Bush fired off some harsh criticism at the Democrats in Congress, “accusing lawmakers of dragging their feet on bills that would address pocketbook issues,” according to the New York Times; however, the blame rest with the president, the Democrats and Republicans. Washington leadership has gone on the offensive against working people and has allowed the capitalists to run wild, ravishing the pocketbooks of all working people.
While he was addressing the press at the White House, President Bush also stated that there is no easy fix for the U.S. economy; however, that is far from being the truth. Fixing the economy must begin by ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; the war is destroying the U.S. economy and has completely destroyed the economies of these two war torn nations. These wars, whose tremendous cost is not offset by taxes, are the immediate cause of the weakness of the dollar, skyrocketing inflation and oil prices, and the widening trade deficit.
The president and U.S. Congress has the power and authority to end the present housing crisis; however, the president and Congress have only taken action to protect the interest of big banks and financial institutions, and global capitalists. The federal government needs to take immediate action to protect the millions of Americans that could lose their homes in 2008 and 2009, and shift the cost of the mortgage lending disaster from working people to the financial manipulators who created the problem.
An immediate change in tax policy must reverse the trend of the last thirty years of shifting the tax burden to those least able to pay. Income taxes should end on individuals earning less than $30,000 annually and couples earning less than $60,000 annually, and increased federal taxes on those with incomes in the millions, who pay less proportionately against the income they receive. Taxing the rich would replace the revenues that are now being paid by workers that are receiving the least income.
A real national rebuilding program is needed. The federal government must invest $3 trillion within the next five years and a total of $5 trillion over the next decade to rebuild the nation’s utilities, communications, and rail infrastructure, refurbish public buildings, strengthen bridges, and repair low income housing across America. The federal government must invest in constructing low income housing, providing jobs for low income families and providing good paying jobs for women and men.
To break the stranglehold of the big energy corporations and associated financial institutions on our government and economy, natural resources, including oil, must be brought under public ownership and democratically managed by the people, not controlled and owned by private corporations.
Socialists believe it is necessary to create good paying jobs for working people rather than mailing millions of people a one time welfare check. Socialists have called for higher minimum wages and developing socially useful jobs for all working people.
The federal government must develop programs to relieve working people from the tremendous debt burden that modern capitalism constantly creates; it is necessary to establish a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all working people, and full comprehensive assistance for the aging. Even though many socialists have called for a Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI), in the 21st Century it has become extremely necessary due to the multitude of failures inherent in a capitalist system.
For more information search the Web for: Stewart A. Alexander; Socialist: Federal tax relief package is welfare for billionaires; U.S. Federal tax relief vanishing at the pumps.
http://www.banderasnews.com/0803/edop-stewartalexander04.htm
http://labs.daylife.com/journalist/stewart_a._alexander
http://StewartAlexanderCares.com
http://www.vote-socialist.org/
http://peaceandfreedom-sjv.org/home/
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/pres08.htm
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
May 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I guess Libertarian Party Watch has to slip in a non-libertarian article once in a while to give the illusion that is actually interested in all 3rd parties.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Leave it to the Socialists to believe that they have some kind of right to control someone else’s private property.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“I guess Libertarian Party Watch has to slip in a non-libertarian article once in a while to give the illusion that is actually interested in all 3rd parties.”
I believe SG has mentioned he’d post more non-libertarian stuff if it was provided.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“an example of the failures of capitalism”
This might be true if the U.S. were based on a “capitalist” system. We are much closer to socialism that a true free market and have been for several decades. Asking the same government you distrust to become more involved in your life doesn’t make much sense.
That being said I do respect that Mr. Alexander is willing to call himself a Socialist. Most in Congress – and the White House – are not.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Leave it to the Socialists to believe that they have some kind of right to control someone else’s private property.”
Well, every government since laws have been written has taken the stance that they have the right to take various actions regarding the property of private individuals. A classic example would be imminent domain. The statement promotes nationalization, but it doesn’t state that it will simply be taken without compensation (though I don’t know for sure Stewart’s view on the matter). Seeing as that’s the only place where controlling another’s private property is concerned, I would have to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to that.
Leave it to the socialists to realize that the actions of such major economic players will have effects upon the populace as a whole. Leave it to the socialists to realize that the energy corporations would have no property nor even exist if it weren’t for the rest of society. Leave it to the socialists to realize that economic activities should be working for the betterment of all people, not only those who can take the most advantage. Leave it to the socialists to realize that a person should receive the fruits of his own labor, rather than all the fruits going to someone who does work that is miniscule at best. Leave it to the socialists to come up with something reasonable.
Corporations exist to reap the fruits of society’s collective efforts for the benefit of a few. Socialism strives to change that; have society’s collective efforts benefit the whole and spread power per person, rather than per dollar. Granted that any group that claims to be socialist should be carefully scritinized as the term has been grossly misused over the years by various third world movements which did not have this goal in mind.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“This might be true if the U.S. were based on a “capitalist” system. We are much closer to socialism that a true free market and have been for several decades. Asking the same government you distrust to become more involved in your life doesn’t make much sense.”
I would agree that capitalism is not an accurate term to describe what we have in America, but it’s far from socialism. Suggesting that a political power so right-leaning is socialist is farcical. Remember that government control is not socialism; socialism is where the people collectively own and control the means of production; economic democracy. Remember that the US government does not own the means of production; the owners of the means of production also own the government. What we have is probably best described as mercantilism, the form of economy that Adam Smith rallied against in Wealth of Nations. Socialism is also an anti-mercantalist movement; however, it attempts to move forward rather than regress back into hundreds of thousands of small businesses. There are too many things that the modern world requires that cannot be done efficiently by such small businesses: electrical grids, electrical production, the construction of complex machinery, etc. A socialist tries to remove the corporate corruption from these industries by bringing it under collective control where the goal is the betterment of the whole, not private profit.
Any student of Adam Smith will realize that free market economics break down in the shadow of concentrations of power such as corporations. Given that, it’s either give up many modern ammenities, live with the corruption, or nationalize.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“the owners of the means of production also own the government”
THAT I can agree with
In a true free market there would be room for both corporations and small businesses. Each would provide appropriate services w/o the favoritism shown larger corporations from the government (through massive regulations) we see now. Competition is a good thing. It provides better services at better services – which is good for the working man.
As we have given up more income in the name of the “common good” we have also lost a good part of the Bill of Rights. I’ll pass on the betterment of the whole and let each person decide what works for them.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Competition is good where it is easy in, easy out. If you can’t have easy in, easy out, the system breaks down. That’s where socialism comes in. Personally, I see an essentially mixed economy as the likely out come of a complete socialist victory. Where small business can actually exist, it will; but aside from the randomly incorporated small business, corporations reign where that is no longer possible, at least not on a competitive level.
But, aside from military spending, where has spending on the common good affected the bill of rights?
May 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“I guess Libertarian Party Watch has to slip in a non-libertarian article once in a while to give the illusion that is actually interested in all 3rd parties.”
The fact is, in the next 18 days, the largest third party in the United States will be dominating the news. This is a rather important convention for the LP. Rifts threaten to tear it apart. Moore/Alexander were picked early. I pay attention to all the candidates as best as I can, and this is the first time I’ve heard anything come from the Socialist Party in a while. Trust me, Brian. This LP race will be pretty intense, I suggest waiting it out.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
It’s more a philosophical argument – the failed wars on poverty, drugs, terrorism, etc. All of these actions have not only harmed people’s economic freedom (again – working people like you and I included), but it gives the Feds the authority to control more aspects of our lives. Worst of all – the spending (especially in cases such Medicare, PDP) is bankrupting future generations. It’s just not sustainable – I would think we would agree on that. We just advocate different remedies.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“Leave it to the socialists to realize that a person should receive the fruits of his own labor, rather than all the fruits going to someone who does work that is miniscule at best.”
Wouldn’t the best way to keep the fruits of one’s own labor be to abolish the income tax?
Maybe you mean the government should be taking my boss’ money and giving some of it to me so we make equal pay. I’m honest enough to realize my boss has more responsibilities that I do, and I do not mind that he makes more money. In fact, our work would be easier and we would probably make more money as a business if there were less regulations and the government didn’t take away my money and redistribute it to God knows where.
All people are created equal, but not all people behave equally. If someone wants to be unscrupulous with their money that’s their own business, and if I happen to know him I might try to help him get back on his own two feet, but the government has no right to take away my, or anyone’s, money and give it to someone else who hasn’t earned it.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“It’s more a philosophical argument – the failed wars on poverty, drugs, terrorism, etc. All of these actions have not only harmed people’s economic freedom (again – working people like you and I included), but it gives the Feds the authority to control more aspects of our lives. Worst of all – the spending (especially in cases such Medicare, PDP) is bankrupting future generations. It’s just not sustainable – I would think we would agree on that. We just advocate different remedies.”
All the costs for Medicare come out of the Medicare Trust Fund, it’s money put aside specifically for it. However, the issue with the costs is valid; we are well overpaying for medical care. It is not something that simply comes from the doctors; most of it comes from the inflated costs from issues stemming from the price of prescription drugs; specifically the patents given out for these drugs. Companies will literally change a small bit of the molecule far away from the active site, giving no effect, repatent it and advertise the hell out of it. Every dollar in advertising means $4-5 in profit when it comes to prescription drugs. A nationalized healthcare system can be much cheaper to provide the same services and quality of service, if done properly. The only real exception is Canada, and that’s only because of the US being right next door to where 90% of their population is. Even with that, they still have rather great care where the doctor makes decisions on operations, not an insurance company. I would also like to stress that this is not what the Democrats are offering, they’re offering billions of dollars in corporate welfare that gives a slight betterment for the people.
But there are certainly issues where the government has erroded the bill of rights, but that is in nationalistic laws such as the PATRIOT Act, not in social welfare systems. In fact, rarely creditted is that the Socilaist Party wants to lessen the need for welfare, dropping down the rolls, by providing economic opportunity where everyone can work who is able-bodied. A boost in benefits may offset much of that, but there’d be more people paying taxes as well.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
General Tax Rebate Theory: The Government is a 800 pound ape whom hits individuals and companies over the head with a large rock. He grabs their wallet[s]. When the ape gives out chump change, he is unhappy that the previous victims are not grateful!
May 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“Wouldn’t the best way to keep the fruits of one’s own labor be to abolish the income tax?”
No. That’s also changing the dynamic of the discussion, we’re talking about base payment; taxation is a separate issue completely. However, it is an issue that does deserve some discussion. We all benefit from public services: roads, health inspectors, police officers, these guys in yellow suits that put out fires, etc. The issue is funding, and that’s where I have to agree with Adam Smith on the ideal purpose of taxation: all people should contribute according to their ability to do so. This not only essentially necessitates an income tax, but a graduated one. Someone who has $50 a week after meeting their basic needs (let us say a paycheck of $250 a week) can afford to contribute a lot less than someone who has $300 a week after meeting their basic needs (let’s say a paycheck of $500 a week) or someone who has $9000 extra ($9200 paycheck). Sales tax is regressive, as are sin taxes, as those who have less pay the same or more as a percentage of total income, keeping in mind the dynamic that they have less spare cash as a percentage.
On the basis of simplistic thought, your conclusion would be correct; however when you take into account the natural complexities and look at every aspect of the picture, your conclusion is incorrect.
“Maybe you mean the government should be taking my boss’ money and giving some of it to me so we make equal pay.”
If you have equal value, that would be assumed. However, I am not talking about direct wage control at all. In fact, socialism does not pretend that everyone should have the same income, that’s communalism (not even communism in which everyone has everything they want and is not something possible with current technology). The guy at the very top of a corporation whose job is to play golf and mandate massive layoffs and approve spin campaigns to confuse the public, he’s pretty much worthless and will simply be replaced with someone who does an actual job, trying to direct economic activity towards public good rather than swindling people out of their money (which is their job, even if the product is valid without said swindling). If your boss is doing more, he would be paid more, if nationalized. If not nationalized, it’s up to the company within basic regulations that prevent those good old days where children worked 10 hours a day in dangerous conditions to try to scrape out a mean existence. That’s why we have labor laws.
“All people are created equal, but not all people behave equally. If someone wants to be unscrupulous with their money that’s their own business, and if I happen to know him I might try to help him get back on his own two feet, but the government has no right to take away my, or anyone’s, money and give it to someone else who hasn’t earned it.”
Actually, it does. That’s the beauty of the social contract that is the Constitution. Of course, they must do it without bias, so they won’t take your money and not your neighbor’s; they can only look at criteria for determining that amount, hence tax laws. Not all people behave the same, true, that’s what makes life worth living. However, no one is talking about reinforcing bad behavior…... fate comes to people differently as well, and that is what welfare is supposed to be for. However, I’d be more concerned about the corporate welfare than social welfare, as it costs you a whole lot more; and social welfare also helps you with not having to support as many police officers; that’s right, it prevents crime.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“General Tax Rebate Theory: The Government is a 800 pound ape whom hits individuals and companies over the head with a large rock. He grabs their wallet[s]. When the ape gives out chump change, he is unhappy that the previous victims are not grateful!”
A general theory that is evidently incorrect. An oversimplification with an extreme bias.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Socialists use money to gas up their Mustangs? John Capitalist Jackson invests money in business ventures that create wealth. John C. can turn that tank of gas into 20 new Mustangs. Of course John C. can choose to cut his gas costs by working from the privacy of his home estate with no need to drive to work under “the Man.” Socialists love “The Man”, they just want a kindler, gentler Man that gives them more beer money.
As a “working person” John C. will gladly accept his stimulation. John C. accepts the partial return of stolen property, though it is not ideal.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
How on EARTH is this a failure of Capitalism? The reason why their monthly expenses went up so much is because of INFLATION, which is a result of our inflationary monetary policy by our central bank—WHICH IS ONE OF THE PLANKS OF SOCIALISM
I’m sorry, but I’ve got a real problem with them taking a problem caused by a Socialist policy and blaming it on Capitalism.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Government redistribution is more like the guy who is called in when a dog is starving, cuts off the dog’s leg and cooks it, eats most of it, gives the bones to the dog, who eats them and wags his tail with gratitude for “solving the hunger crisis.”
May 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Socialists use money to gas up their Mustangs? John Capitalist Jackson invests money in business ventures that create wealth.”
Socialists tend not to afford Mustangs. John C Jackson hires someone to invest the money for him.
The thing about these simple stories and jokes is that they don’t argue anything, they don’t convince anyone but the dimmest who believe whatever they hear. You should make an argument, not a story. There is no clear way to argue with a story, so it gets the debate nowhere, perhaps intentionally. The fact is that there is very little example of ingenuitive investment, what exists can still exist under a socialist system. However, when it comes to the obvious, the government can easily do that investment and everyone can benefit.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think Libertarianism or Socialism are present in our government. We’ve got mercantilism. A government for, by, and of the corporations.
And why did the 13 colonies split off of England? Mercantilism!
So I think we can all agree that this is a bad thing, and that’s it’s better to be united as anti corporatists and anti mercantilists than divided as libertarians and socialists and anarchists and anything else.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Socialists tend not to afford Mustangs.
Socialists in California don’t drive $20,000 Mustang GTs. They do drive $35,000 Dodge Charger HEMIs however—one of the perks of being a member of the California State Legislature is a Dodge Charger HEMI (or SUV) provided at state expense.
One of the legislators got carjacked in Oakland in his Charger HEMI, which doubtlessly was needed for constituent service. The Socialist-leaning Democrat, of course, is a huge proponent of fuel tax increases and income tax increases targeting the private sector drivers who can actually afford a Charger on their own dime… to help pay for the state-procured HEMI for the legislator in question.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“How on EARTH is this a failure of Capitalism? The reason why their monthly expenses went up so much is because of INFLATION, which is a result of our inflationary monetary policy by our central bank—WHICH IS ONE OF THE PLANKS OF SOCIALISM I’m sorry, but I’ve got a real problem with them taking a problem caused by a Socialist policy and blaming it on Capitalism.”
I’m done answering every silly story, so I’ll skip Brian Miller’s analogy. However, inflation is based on actual economic practice, not on the Central bank’s interest policies. Inflation happens because everyone raises their prices in a chaotic manner that the Central bank tries to regulate; a Central Bank established and promoted long before socialism rose on the scene in America. A central bank promoted by a big money idealist named Alexander Hamilton who would be attacking socialism left and right if he were alive today. A central bank in socialist literature is operating in a socialist system, not a corporate system. In fact, the means that the bank uses is based on the work of a liberal, John Maynard Keynes, who was trying to keep the corporate system afloat. Once again, looking only shallowly into the water fails to give clear vision.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Brian, how is the California legislature socialist? Seriously, make an honest comment if you want to be taken seriously.
But anyways, notice how the story-like comment at the end of my last post only sums up the arguments made before it? That’s how it is rightfully used, because without the argumental basis it’s meaningless.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Ross, I’m done responding for today, but good comment and good point.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Stephen Tash,
The Socialists in the story complain about the cost of fueling their 2 vehicles including a v6 Mustang. I did not bring that up.
I also don’t pay anyone to invest for me. Perhaps I do not meet your definition of “capitalist” because I am more of a small business entrepreneur. I “invest” in MYSELF rather than crying and complaining while expecting someone else to provide for my WANTS.
Socialism is the enemy of the poor and capitalism is the cure, IMHO. I get sick of hearing about socialists complaining about their good fortune.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Socialist Democrats? In the same way Republicans are libertarian? Hah!
Socialism and capitalism can exist side-by-side. But neither socialism or capitalism can coexist with corporatism.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Ross – Mercantilism is what the Constitution Party and George Phillies want. What we have is Fascism.
But leave it to the idiot socialists to conflate what we have as “capitalism.” We have a monetary system created by the Fabian Socialists and a welfare state that THEY (the socialists) lobbied for. Thank you socialists! Now burn in hell.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Stephen Tash is apparently a Socialist. Stephen Tash is obviously ignorant of basic economics. Strange how often the two go together…
No, everyone does NOT “raise their prices in a chaotic manner.” The price is set by supply and demand. Trying to raise prices above that level—chaotically or otherwise—results in surpluses which drive the price back down again.
Inflation is NOT rising prices; it’s a fall in the value of money. This results in the NOMINAL price of goods and services going up WITHOUT a corresponding rise in the REAL prices.
This is basic macroeconomics. Really, Socialism is to economics what creationism is to biology…
May 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Shane Killian – Correction: Inflation is not the “fall in the value of money”—that is the same thing as “rising prices.” Inflation is EXPANSION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, period.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Brian, how is the California legislature socialist? Seriously, make an honest comment if you want to be taken seriously.
Ummm. . . are you attempting to argue that the California state government is not socialist?
Seriously?
For real?
May 5th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Inflation is not the “fall in the value of money”—that is the same thing as “rising prices.” Inflation is EXPANSION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, period.
You’re both wrong.
Inflation is the increase of the money supply at a rate faster than the increase of the economic output of the economy.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am
GE: The decrease of the value of money is CAUSED by the expansion of the money supply. The supply/demand equation works for money, too.
BM: There’s a controversy here. Some economists say what you do; other economists say it’s still inflation because the prices are higher than they WOULD be without the expansion of money. If the money supply doesn’t expand with the economy, it’s not deflation, it’s REAL prices going down. The difference being that capital is being freed up for other things. Expanding the money supply to meet it just sucks away that freed-up capital.
You can guess which ones I go with.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Shane – “The value of money” is measured by its purchasing power. Therefore, its decline is identical to a rise in the price level. The “value” of money can be maintained even with monetary inflation. That doesn’t mean there is no inflation.
BM: You show your neocon colors again here. If the money supply expands and the overall price level does not rise, it can be correctly credited to technological advancements, changes in spending patterns, an overall increase in production levels and substitutes, etc. Regardless, if prices do not rise in accordance with expansion of the monetary base, this still represents a theft from the people who created the new wealth. In the absence of monetary expansion, prices would have come DOWN. Where is this distortionary transfer of wealth going?
WHY DO YOU NEOCONS HATE POOR PEOPLE SO MUCH?
May 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Socialists are evil.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Stephen, the services you mention that “we all benefit from” are provided for largely at the local and state level. An elimination of the federal (perhaps I should have clarified that) income tax would have very little effect on most of those services, and leave more money available to local economies. When it comes to the local and state level, every community has its own individual situation (due, in part, to the natural complexities you mentioned earlier) and it should be up to those communities, not the national government, to decided what type of taxation, if any, and at what rate, should be levied to pay for those services.
As for the government taking away and redistributing wealth, I misspoke (or rather, mistyped). The government DOES have the right to do so to a certain extent, but I meant that it SHOULDN’T have the right to tax income, at least on the federal level. The smaller and more localized a government is, the better it can effectively govern. A socialist America would require enormous expanses in the federal government. The federal government can’t even handle what it does now (come to think of it, neither can most state governments and many local governments), how will it handle such a massive redistribution of wealth and provision of public services required under socialism?
May 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Why does the Left always assume that a government bureaucrat is somehow more virtuous, kind and fair than a corporate bureaucrat? At least Ford can’t make me buy a Mustang.
All systems would work if all people were angels. Unfortunately socialism depends more on the angelic to keep it from going terribly, terribly wrong than the alternative.
O.W.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
People are just too divisive and angry here. Period.
There’s too much shouting and meaningless drivel on these comments sections for anyone to have a meaningful discussion.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
And by the way, can’t you see that being divided just hurts whatever third party(s) you support? By the few of us that are actually actively supporting third parties not uniting to achieve common goals (maybe overcoming capitalism or getting fair ballot access), we’re just hurting our chances of ever becoming viable, and helping maintain the duopoly. And by doing that we are helping to maintain whatever status quo it is that we rail against.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Just because I’m a critic of socialism doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sign their ballot petition. In fact I would, if they returned the favor.
O.W.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Ross has a point. Unfortunately, the same can be said of virtually all internet sites where comments are allowed. These sites are, essentially, places where grownups can hide behind their anonymity and pretend to be rage-filled teenagers who think everyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot, a moron, retarded, evil, etc. etc. Maybe I haven’t dug in deep enough yet, but I have yet to read a comment by any libertarian on this website who didn’t think that (don’t laugh) Democrats and Republicans are both socialists, and if you don’t agree with that you’re an uneducated idiot. Give me a break.
There were an awful lot of people back in the ‘30s and ‘40s who strongly disagreed with everything Norman Thomas had to say, but they had the maturity and essential decency to show him the respect he deserved instead of engaging in juvenile ad hominem attacks. Most of the people whose comments I read here would do well to pry open their brains with a crowbar and open up “On Socialism” by Norman Thomas or “The Other America” by Michael Harrington. I spent enough time with books by Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. Now I’d like to see some Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart fanatics return the favor.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Just because I’m a critic of socialism doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sign their ballot petition. In fact I would, if they returned the favor.
O.W.
AT LEAST SOMEONE ON THIS SITE HAS THE COMMON COURTESY TO GIVE A REACH AROUND!
May 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hey, I’m a teenager, and even I don’t do that, David! I completely understand what you’re saying, but in a place like this it really shouldn’t happen. We all have a common cause, and it would be so much better for all of us if we just worked toward that instead of bickering.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
hscxznpva ylzu epjib ejcwxz nxga brkgdvj hqagd
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
evzlbmr bops
August 4th, 2008 at 2:09 am
fiyxg hwysbtf pcibxl druji
August 5th, 2008 at 3:04 am
kmgyds cvasqyk
August 5th, 2008 at 4:15 am
pxzcq aefmph wkgto mjceovg
August 7th, 2008 at 3:10 am
cpbzux tjfar bdkhf
August 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
phswgi dahm tbvn rajgmx
August 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
sgvdjt
August 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
phlyd idgyoqj dlztqpi
August 15th, 2008 at 2:19 am
ftyhcr
August 16th, 2008 at 2:18 am
ltqo nxhwmga avchi devzql
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 am
drzecp pzeua
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
cbspg orpc ygul wnogq
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
blyvd
August 26th, 2008 at 7:39 am
qidafc ntma kwhlby
August 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
qvcwt klcqhgn
August 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
owby cznvebd ubsldh vesit